15. No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service
must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and
well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark
decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly
telephone network.

@coliver said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@wirestyle22 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
BREAKING: Senator Chuck Schumer says there will be a Senate Vote to overturn the FCC's ruling on Net Neutrality -- Only a simple majority will be required to overturn the ruling.
Sadly, he needs a majority but the R have the majority and don't want to vote against the companies that have them in their pockets. And there is no point to doing so as this was Trump's boi in the FCC and Trump has veto. So while CHuck is doing a good thing, it won't make any difference.
It's posturing. Seems more like he knows it won't work and is just prepping for 2018 at this point.
He and Booker are top considerations for president so, very likely.

@coliver said in US and Canada Diverge on Net Neutrality:
@scottalanmiller said in US and Canada Diverge on Net Neutrality:
@coliver said in US and Canada Diverge on Net Neutrality:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/win-for-local-broadband-maine-rejects-ban-on-taxpayer-funded-networks/#p3
Good for you Maine. Not letting anti-competitive laws pass is a great way to fight the impending loss of Net Neutrality.
Time to move to the land of lobster!
I've got family up there. It's actually a really nice state.
I spent my childhood summering there every other year. I actually really love it. My family came SO close to selling the farm and buying a diner up there on an island when I was about ten. I almost grew up in a tiny little island town.

Democrats’ net neutrality bill would fully restore Obama-era FCC rules
Democrats in Congress today introduced a net neutrality bill that would fully restore the Obama-era rules that were repealed by the FCC's current Republican majority.
The "Save the Internet Act" is just three pages long. Instead of writing a new set of net neutrality rules, the bill would nullify FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's December 2017 repeal of the FCC order passed in February 2015 and forbid the FCC from repealing the rules in the future.

@thecreativeone91 said:
I think they are just worried the government will over reach like they do in many other things.
This is why I did not want Title II applied. I worked for an ILEC for years and I know just how much of a f[moderated]ed up mess that it made of things when DSL was rolled out back in 2000.
I have never been against network neutrality principles, but Title II was not the best way to go about it.
By using Title II, I expect the ILECs to bring all their lawyers in, and those lawyers already know Title II inside and out. This is going to turn in to a complete cluster f[moderated].

@PSX_Defector said:
I used to use an ISP that charged by the bit. People bitched and moaned about it because they thought bandwidth was free. Yeah, it cost a tiny bit more to use them, but I had one hop to the InterNAP backbone. 10ms lag to games, always available bandwidth, always good. This is where ISPs are gonna have to go to limit dumbasses leaving Netflix on all day long and not watching it.
@JaredBusch said:
It was pretty obvious. ISPs should charge for usage, then people would see how it really works all the way to their pocketbook.
I'll admit that I skipped his last paragraph - the rant bored me before I got to the real meat of his post :).
But to the point that I quoted above, why do they need to go to a pay per bit method? If they are not making enough money selling you the 50 meg unlimited they claim they are currently selling you... uhhhh.. guess what.. they need to raise their rates.. this seems pretty cut and dry. Sure if you want to really make people use less bandwidth start charging by the bit and showing people real usage and cost, but if bandwidth really isn't an issue (I certainly don't know if it is or not) but they aren't making enough to cover the 50 meg they are selling me.. then raise the damned rates. Considering today's lack of competition setup there isn't anywhere for someone to go.. so they are pretty safe...

@Dashrender said:
Power, Water and Sewer I can understand - but phone, cable, internet - we're not talking huge items here. While I will agree that the government should PERHAPS own this and allow at cost access, I don't see running more fiber/copper, etc into neighborhoods as physically restricted as water and sewer.
It's not as restrictive but once you don't have the right to do it, you don't have the right to do it. It's a black and white issue in many cases. No one wants twenty carriers running lines down the telephone poles. It gets very messy very quickly. And if you go underground then you are looking at digging up a whole city to let a new carrier in. It's not impossible, but it is just as effective as water or sewer in most cases and definitely as restrictive as power.